Jailed Ex-Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren Today (May 22nd) withdrew his plea from the Supreme Court contesting his arrest in a money laundering case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Incarcerated former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren withdrew his plea before the Supreme Court challenging his arrest in a money laundering case. This decision came after a Vacation Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma indicated their reluctance to entertain Soren’s plea, citing his pursuit of parallel remedies.
The Bench questioned Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal, representing Soren, about the omission of critical information in the plea.
“Tell us why was this not mentioned anywhere that cognisance has been taken. Why was cognisance not disclosed,”
-the Court asked.
Following this, Soren opted to withdraw his plea.
The Court was hearing Soren’s challenge to his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which has booked him in connection with a “huge racket of illegal change of ownership of land by the mafia” in Jharkhand.
The ED had filed a prosecution complaint on June 23, 2016, under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against Soren, ten others, and three companies. Over a dozen people have been arrested in the case so far, including Chhavi Ranjan, a 2011-batch IAS officer who served as Director of the State’s Social Welfare Department and Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi.
Soren’s statement was recorded under the PMLA on January 20 this year. He was subsequently arrested and stepped down as Chief Minister of Jharkhand on January 31 following his arrest. Soren has denied the allegations of money laundering, claiming in a video released before his detention that he was being arrested based on “fake papers” as part of a conspiracy.
Soren’s initial plea challenging his arrest was dismissed by the Jharkhand High Court on May 3, prompting him to take the matter to the Supreme Court. On May 13, the Supreme Court issued notice to the ED regarding Soren’s plea challenging the Jharkhand High Court’s decision not to release him. The Court also asked the ED to file a short reply concerning Soren’s prayer for interim bail.
During the hearing, the Bench questioned the validity of Soren’s challenge to his arrest, given that two lower courts had already denied bail after finding a prima facie case against him. The Court’s scrutiny and Soren’s subsequent withdrawal of his plea highlight the complexities and procedural intricacies involved in high-profile legal battles involving political figures.
CASE TITLE:
Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.
YESTERDAY IN APEX COURT
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court questioned the maintainability of a plea filed by former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren challenging his arrest in a money laundering case. The inquiry arose because both a trial court and the High Court had already rejected Soren’s bail application.
A Vacation Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma highlighted that since the orders refusing bail indicated a prima facie case against Soren, the issue now was whether the apex court could examine the legality of his arrest.
“There is a judicial forum order which says there is commission of offence. We have been called to ascertain whether the arrest was warranted based on the material. You have to persuade us despite these two orders (rejecting bail) we can get into the legality of the arrest,”
-the Court asked.
Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal, representing Soren, argued that the challenge was to the legality of the arrest itself, not for bail or quashing the case.
“The judicial decision is that offence of money laundering has been committed under PMLA. Twin conditions apply when I say release me on bail. I am not asking for bail or quashing. I am not saying cognisance is bad. I am saying arrest was itself wrong since all material in possession does not make out a case for an arrest,”
-Sibal replied.
The Court noted that while Soren’s writ petition challenging his arrest was pending before the High Court, he had also filed a separate bail plea, which was dismissed. The Court questioned Sibal on the permissibility of such an action, asking,
“Mr. Sibal, your writ petition was dismissed on May 3 by High Court and you had applied for bail on April 15. Did you take leave of the (High) Court – any formal leave of the High Court that since you (High Court) are not delivering judgment (in petition challenging arrest), we are moving for bail?”
Sibal replied,
“Certainly no.”
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), criticized Soren’s approach, saying,
“Riding two horses at the same time which is deprecated by this court on number of occasions.”
The ED has booked Soren in a case concerning a “huge racket of illegal change of ownership of land by the mafia” in Jharkhand. A prosecution complaint was filed by the ED on June 23, 2016, under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against Soren, ten others, and three companies. Over a dozen people, including Chhavi Ranjan, a 2011-batch IAS officer, have been arrested in the case.
Soren’s statement was recorded under the PMLA on January 20 this year. He was later arrested and stepped down as Chief Minister of Jharkhand on January 31. Soren has denied the money-laundering allegations, claiming in a video released before his detention that he was being arrested based on “fake papers” as part of a conspiracy.
The Supreme Court issued a notice to the ED on May 13 regarding Soren’s plea challenging the Jharkhand High Court’s decision not to release him and requested a short reply from the ED concerning Soren’s prayer for interim bail.
During the hearing, Sibal argued that Soren was booked based solely on oral statements claiming he had illegally acquired ownership of 8.86 acres of land.
“ED just records statements of people who say land belongs to Soren and that is how ED reaches the conclusion that land belongs to Hemant Soren. No actual evidence, only oral statements,”
–Sibal said.
He maintained that Soren had no connection to the land in question, stating,
“Lease is with Rajkumar Pahan. Nothing to do with me and the electricity line connection also on the land has nothing to do with me.”
ASG SV Raju contended that Soren did not challenge the cognisance order and that his bail plea was rejected. Raju also claimed that Soren attempted to alter possession certificates after being issued notice, thereby destroying evidence.
“After he was issued notice, he tried to get back to one of the earlier owners and change the possession document. That means he is not only guilty but also destroying evidence. All of this has been looked into by the High Court in detail,”
–the ASG said.
The Court persisted with its questioning regarding Soren’s simultaneous applications for bail and challenging his arrest.
“Suppose we hold the arrest is illegal then what happens to the two orders (denying bail)?”
-the Court asked.
Sibal replied,
“It will go.”
Sibal also contended that even if the ED’s allegations were accepted, no scheduled offence was made out.
“Illegal possession of property is not a scheduled offence. That is the law. Let me accept forcible possession argument though no evidence.. But even then no scheduled offence. Forgery which is predicate offence has no involvement of mine,”
–Sibal argued.
Sibal further questioned whether a delay in the High Court’s decision on his arrest petition meant he could not apply for bail.
“If I challenge my arrest in High Court and it remains pending for 2.5 months, then can I never apply for bail?”
He posited that this issue might need to be decided by the Supreme Court.
“This court has to decide that I can never apply for bail under Section 19 PMLA and if arrested under Section 19 then my right to bail goes. I am raising a constitutional infirmity because this is about my freedom and deals with Article 19 and if the arrest under Section 19 is wrong, then the arrest goes. Can it be the law that freedom of a man and legality of arrest cannot be gone into because he says without prejudice to his rights, he is seeking bail?” Sibal submitted.
The Court acknowledged the complexities and adjourned the matter for further hearing on Wednesday, remarking,
“See, they (ED) have a good case on merits, but you have to satisfy us. We will hear this tomorrow.”
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Hemant Soren
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
